mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Marinus Anthony van der Sluijs

what is wrong with the evolution theory?

skipping.....

_principles of evolution_
_micro-evolution_

o       The extent of genetic change by selection has been found
experimentally to be finite: _The natural limit on the amount of
variation that can be induced in a species is merely the expression of
the fact that nowhere in the animal or plant kingdom is there a
species that is capable of the infinite biological plasticity demanded
by evolution theory, capable of unlimited adaptation to different
environments and different modes of life._[41][39]

o       Genetic variation of the ordinary kind is not capable of
explaining the appearance of entirely novel characteristics, such as
the appearance of a wing where before there was only an arm. _For the
genetic inheritance mechanism is merely one of re-shuffling and
re-combination of characteristics already represented in what
Dobzhansky called the 'gene-pool' of that species._[42][40]

_missing links_

o       Transitional species are not merely unusual; they are missing
entirely.[43][41]

_survival of the fittest and natural selection_

o       Attributes of behaviour assumed to be aggressive often turn
out on detailed observation to be nothing of the kind. This violates
the theory of survival of the fittest.[44][42]

o       The so-called ecological advantage assisting survival is an
illusion. Giraffes who have developed longer necks have no advantage
over their predecessors with shorter necks because the old ones will
continue to feed successfully on what they can find at their
heights.[45][43]

o       In evolution theory it is necessary to suppose that species
are somehow pre-adapted before the environmental change occurs that
makes the novelty a requirement for survival. This is a timing
problem, because all developments in species will have to have been
preadapted in that manner. _The improbability of the precise
adaptation either occurring at the right moment, or being an existing
adaptation that can luckily be further extended, has led
neo-Darwinists to look for other explanations._ The unused portions of
the DNA may provide the answer. However, we never see such mutations
emergence spontaneously. _Because mutations are not observed, we are
entitled to conclude that the unused 90 per cent of the DNA molecule
is not the home of beneficial mutations._[46][44]

o       _... it is not the fittest which survives but the luckiest - a
quality which is not usually thought of as inheritable._[47][45]

o       All that matters for evolution is who leaves more descendants
over the generations. _Natural selection favours fitness only if you
define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do
define it that way, which may be confusing to others. To a geneticist,
fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks or
anything but effectiveness in breeding_ (George Simpson).[48][46]

o       _The modern position therefore is that natural selection and
the survival of the fittest are no more than harmless tautologies,
while the struggle for survival plays no important part in
evolution._[49][47]_ To summarise, the modern position of the
synthetic theory is: the struggle for existence plays no part in
evolution. The direction of evolution is determined solely by the
characteristics of those animals and plants which are successful
breeders ... Thus 'survival of the fittest', or 'natural selection',
or 'differential reproduction', sheds no light on the mechanism of
evolution and is only another way of saying some animals live and
breed while others die out._[50][48] The ordinary mechanisms of
evolution would be luck and fertility.

_mutation rate_

o       Darwinists believe that only germinal mutation, the mutation
of sexual cells in the male sperm or female egg, can result in
inheritable variation,[51][49] which makes the chance for successful
random mutations negligible.

o       Synthetic evolutionists pretend many more mutations occur than
actually take place, by including fatal genetic defects, and they
pretend that splitting up the overall evolution process of a complex
organ like the eye somehow reduces the improbability of those separate
steps coming about by accident in the correct sequence.[52][50]

_order of evolution_

o       The fossils of complex animals are sometimes succeeded in the
rocks by remains of simpler creatures, and then complicated again.
Darwinists claimed that the simpler creatures were merely degenerate
recapitulations of the ancestral ones,[55][53] but this seems to be an
_ad hoc_ solution.

o       Viruses are not representative of the first forms of
self-reproducing life, because they _lack the ability to replicate
unless they inhabit a host cell - a fully functioning cell with its
own genetic replication mechanisms. So the first virus must have come
_after _the first cell, not before in a satisfyingly Darwinian
progression._[56][54]

_genetics_

o       The discovery that the species share amounts of DNA enabling
us to classify them in categories of closer and less close similarity
does not explain how those structures came into being or prove that
those organisms share a common ancestor.[57][55]

o       _But in any case, even if studies of the similarity of
cytochrome c should provide strong circumstantial evidence that all
animals are genetically related, or even strong circumstantial
evidence that animals have evolved from a common ancestor, what they
do not prove is that the mechanism of that evolution was genetic
mutation coupled with natural selection - the synthetic or
neo-Darwinian model._[58][56]

_conclusion_

o       _... virtually every apparent scientific discovery that
stimulated the theory _[of Darwinism; MAS] _in the first place and
later assisted with its development has now been found to be false.
The variation Darwin observed in the Galapagos was no more than
sub-specific variation of the common kind, incapable of leading to
novelty; his 'natural selection' is now seen to explain nothing except
in the trivial sense that the fit survive and those who survive are
fit; the fossil record in the 'areas most likely to afford remains'
have been thoroughly searched and palaeontologists have found no
fossil evidence linking mankind with extinct apes. There are no fossil
'missing links' in the geological record. Even de Vries's discovery of
'mutations' was a mistake, since the plant he observed turned out to
be a freak; Dobzhansky's attempts to significantly alter the genetic
structure of _Drosophila _were a failure; all attempts to discover and
examine a beneficial mutation have met with failure, the only
mutations observed are fatal defects; so-called 'industrial melanism'
in moths turns out to be not 'natural selection' but an ordinary
population shift; so-called orthogenesis in fossil horses turns out
not to be an example of evolution but a group of disconnected species.
The Earth is probably not billions of years old and may only be
thousands; sedimentary rocks do not take millions of years to form,
but hours to lithify. And so on, and on, and on._[59][57]
_the viable alternative: externally-driven evolution_

o       _However unlikely it seems and however difficult it proves to
obtain experimental confirmation, it looks increasingly probable that
in some unknown way, individuals can not only adapt to their
environment or way of life but can also sometimes pass on that
adaptation to their offspring._[63][61]

o       _The specific reason that Darwinian geneticists reject any
form of Lamarckism is their belief that the genes are unalterably
separate from the cells of the body and that there is no route by
which changes could be communicated to them from outside._ But Temin
discovered that _viruses can transport genetic material into host
cells and embed it in the host DNA where it will later replicate
itself using the host cell's factory facilities for synthesising
proteins ... Having found a two-way channel of communication between
the genes and the outside world, science still lacked a mechanism by
which the demands of the environment could directly affect the germ
cells ... Steele proposed that mutations could occur in body cells, be
copied to other body cells by viruses and finally be transmitted by
viruses to the germ cells of the sperm in men or egg in women, and so
become inheritable._[64][62]

o       Purely psychological factors might be able to translate into
both somatic and ultimately genetic factors: _the content of an
individual consciousness could affect his or her body and the bodies
of any offspring._[65][63]

o       _In attempting to gather the strands of evidence from the
natural world that might point the way to an alternative view of
evolution, there seem to me to be three key kinds of observation,
three persistently recurring themes that are crying for answers: the
unerring accuracy of nature, her lack of trial and error; the presence
of a systematic programme above the cellular level, controlling
somatic development; and the overwhelming probability that
environmental factors can in some unknown way directly affect the
genetic structure of the individual._[66][64]

http://mythopedia.info/synthesis.htm